The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the
principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry
research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the national forests and national grasslands, it strives—as directed by
Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or
part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 7953272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and
employer.
Authors
Frederick J. Swanson is a research geologist, Pacific Northwest Research Station,
Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331; Steve
Eubanks, retired, was Supervisor, Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA; Mary
Beth Adams is a supervisory soil scientist, Northern Research Station, P.O. Box
404, Parsons, WV 26287; John C. Brissette is a supervisory research forester,
Northern Research Station, 271 Mast Road, Durham, NH 03824; Carol DeMuth is
a NEPA Coordinator, Research and Development, Washington Office, 1323 Club
Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592.
Cover
These images represent some of the variety of ecosystems and human engagements
in long-term, Forest Service research properties across the country.
Photos by Forest Service staff.
Abstract
Swanson, Frederick J.; Eubanks, Steve; Adams, Mary Beth; Brissette,
John C.; DeMuth, Carol. 2010. Guide to effective research-management
collaboration at long-term environmental research sites. Gen. Tech. Rep.
PNW-GTR-821. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 12 p.
The Forest Service system of experimental forests and ranges (EFRs) and other sites
of long-term silvicultural, watershed, and ecological research have contributed to
science and natural resource management for more than a century. An important
aspect of the success of EFR programs is strong collaboration between the research
and land manager communities. This guide offers suggestions for effective researchmanagement partnerships based at EFRs and other long-term research sites. Keys to
success include mutual understanding and respect, shared commitment to learning,
and joint projects and communications programs.
Keywords: Experimental forests, experimental ranges, adaptive management,
guidelines for management, technology transfer.
Purpose of this guide
This guide is intended to help build strong relationships between researchers and
land managers, especially, but not exclusively, for those who work in connection
with lands dedicated to long-term study. It is the hope that better relationships will
lead to more effective and efficient natural resource management and research
studies. This guide seeks to provide a balanced look at the roles of researchers and
land managers and to provide ideas for reducing problems that can occur on jointly
managed properties and programs, increasing the quality and relevance of studies,
and enhancing the transfer of research results. This guide is not meant to apply only
to the Forest Service or only on national forest land. Although this guide focuses on
EFRs, it is meant to pertain to all sites of place-based study, including research
natural areas and one-of-a-kind designations, such as the Mount St. Helens National
Volcanic Monument, Washington and the Glacier Lakes Ecosystem Experiment Site,
Wyoming, or even on lands with no special designation.
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
Guide to Effective Research-Management Collaboration at Long-Term Environmental Research Sites
Introduction
For a century, the Forest Service network of experimental forests and ranges
(EFRs) and other sites of place-based study, including long-term research, have
proven to be vital sources of new knowledge for science and management of the
Nation’s forest, grassland, and water resources. From its simple beginning, in an
exchange of notes between Gifford Pinchot and Raphael Zon in 1907, to the
present system of approximately 80 EFRs, the Forest Service has built a system of
long-term records of environmental change, carried out applied studies to support
natural resource management, and conducted basic research. The continent-spanning distribution of EFRs (fig. 1) has well served their initial objective of developing new management systems and restoration strategies for forests, ranges, and
watersheds in the context of local circumstances (Lugo et al. 2006, USDA Forest
Service 2009). The EFRs have been the sites of important discoveries with wideranging impact, such as recognition of acid rain, the ecological characteristics of
old-growth forests, and long-term outcomes of different silvicultural practices.
Increasingly, and into the future, the geographic spread of the EFRs position them
to function as sentinels for environmental change and a foundation for science to
help mitigate and manage effects of global change on natural resources. The history
and current status of EFRs are described in Adams et al. (2004), Lugo et al.
(2006), an EFR poster (USDA Forest Service 2008), EFR success stories (USDA
Forest Service 2009), and EFR Web pages at Washington office, station, and
individual EFR levels (http://www.fs.fed.us/research/efr/).
Differences in culture and mission, however, make work at the researchmanagement interface challenging (USDA Forest Service 1997). Managers tend
to work on shorter time horizons, seek the best solution to local problems, and
operate with greater public scrutiny and less freedom to let curiosity guide their
work. Researchers tend to take a longer and broader view, value open debate about
ideas, and are rewarded for publications and other achievements in a system of peer
review. The mission of managers is to manage natural resources in a legal and
socially acceptable manner; scientists strive to develop new knowledge using the
tools of science. But, together researchers and managers share the objective of
learning how natural systems work and how they can be managed sustainably to
meet human needs.
The long-term, place-based work at ERFs and similar sites has been an important foundation for research-management partnerships. Responsibilities for conducting important long-term studies of subjects like basic ecological processes,
1
Figure 1—Experimental forests and ranges. Note that this guide also pertains to research-management collaboration associated with other long-term research properties,
such as Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument and research natural areas not shown on this map.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-821
2
Guide to Effective Research-Management Collaboration at Long-Term Environmental Research Sites
silviculture, hydrology, fish and wildlife ecology, and landscape management can
be shared by researchers and managers. Shared communications programs can
facilitate exchange with many other groups, including fellow land managers and
scientists, students, policymakers, general public, forest landowners, and the media.
These common activities can build strong personal and institutional relationships
that support the collaborative search for solutions when problems or potential
conflicts arise.
This guide builds on the fine work summarized in a publication from the 1994
and 1996 meetings held at the Rensselaerville Institute in New York (USDA Forest
Service 1997). Set in the context of a series of one-time, bioregional assessments
and planning efforts, discussions at these meetings arrived at 13 guidelines for
effective collaboration among managers and researchers in the Forest Service (see
box). This guide expands on these general principles to address challenges that
accompany management of long-term research properties.
Guidelines for research-management collaborations (modified from
USDA Forest Service 1997). See the original publication for elaboration.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
12.
13.
14.
Build close personal relationships.
Understand cultural differences.
Pick the right person as a collaborator.
Invest in joint arrangements.
Collaborate in planning for the future.
Share responsibilities for identifying issues and involve both researchers
and managers early and often.
Develop an organizational structure for collaboration.
Staff the interface with a liaison individual or team.
Bring in new staff interested in partnership work, including hiring in both
research and management organizations.
Provide sufficient time and resources to address the issues that are
identified.
Develop and implement a charter that commits research and management to
address shared issues.
Clearly identify roles and responsibilities.
Develop a communications, public involvement, and media plan.
Specify legal and policy constraints.
15.
Capture and share lessons that are learned.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
3
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-821
Mission and Authorities of Experimental Forests
and Ranges
The place of research on the land and within the Forest Service as an agency has
evolved over the past century. Research on national forest lands has roots in the
first studies initiated in 1908 at places now known as Fort Valley Experimental
Forest, Arizona and Wind River Experimental Forest, Washington. Passage of the
McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928 and its implementation by the 1930 Regulation
L-20—Experimental Forests and Ranges, Natural Areas and Primitive Areas, gave
research a recognized separation from national forest administration. This act
provided for the establishment of a network of experiment areas that would be
dedicated and used for research. It was under this policy that most EFRs have
been established. This direction was reaffirmed with the passage of the Forest
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978, which authorizes the
Secretary of Agriculture to “establish and maintain a system of experiment stations,
research laboratories, experimental areas and other forest and rangeland research
facilities.”
Forest Service code of federal regulations 36 CFR 251.23 set forth broad
direction for establishing and administering experimental forests, ranges, grasslands, and watersheds. General authorities and responsibilities based on these
regulations can be found in Forest Service Manual 4062, which under Objectives
(4062.02) states, “Experimental forests, ranges, grasslands, and watersheds provide
lands for conducting Research and Development that serves as a basis for the
management of forests and rangelands.” The planning process provides an excellent
opportunity for research and management to review issues and together develop
general direction and standards and guides that protect these valuable research
assets. In some cases, it may be useful, if not essential, to have planning documents
signed by both Research and Development and National Forest System leaders.
Some issues present significant challenges in interpreting the mission and
authorities for land-use practices and research studies at EFRs. Although the
importance of EFRs is very clear in the legislative and regulatory record, assignment of administrative responsibilities has been somewhat ambiguous. This ambiguity has sometimes led to decisions by land managers about nonresearch use on
EFRs that have disrupted current studies and restricted future research. Also, the
need for learning and research may recommend use of practices that deviate from
the current management standards and guidelines for national forest lands. That
can cause anxiety for managers who, more often than researchers, must deal with
4
Guide to Effective Research-Management Collaboration at Long-Term Environmental Research Sites
public scrutiny of what happens on federal land. Dealing with that scrutiny requires
flexibility on the part of management staff and knowledge about the goals of the
research. On the other hand, the research community may need to flex in cases
where issues that have been seen only as threats to long-term field studies may also
need to be embraced as new subjects of research, such as effects of urban encroachment and invasive species. Consequently, interpretations of mission and authority
for EFRs will likely evolve as the issues of concern to researchers and managers
change over time in an ever-shifting societal context at a range of scales. Flexibility
in approaches, good communication, and cooperation are essential for EFRs to
sustain the values and successes of the past 100 years.
Research and Management Relationships and
Roles in Collaborative Efforts
The strength of relationships between managers and researchers reflect two main
factors: (1) the level of mutual understanding of various authorities related to
management of research properties and (2) the interest of the involved parties in
working together for common goals. The resulting partnerships can be viewed at
five levels of collaboration. In the worst case, active antagonism and conflict may
exist between the two groups, although this is extremely rare and may reflect
misunderstanding and differences in culture. A second, more benign relationship
involves ignorance and obliviousness of one another, which commonly stems from
profound differences in roles and workplace culture. The third case is a neutral
relationship in which managers and researchers operate quite independently, but
information does flow through standard technology transfer paths. A fourth, more
advanced stage of collaboration has researchers and managers helping each other to
do their respective jobs, and technology transfer is an important means of interaction. Fifth, in a very intensive partnership, each group assertively seeks ways to
help the other with their duties, and together the partners conduct shared studies
that are mutually beneficial. They also together conduct communications events,
such as field tours, and workshops, and produce communication products such as
publications (fig. 2). Attention to serving the diverse users of findings that result
from the partnership can intensify the collaboration.
The traditional “technology transfer” model of research-management relationship implies that science products take the form of “technology,” which is transferred from scientists to managers via one-way communication. In this model,
scientists develop hypotheses, design and conduct studies, publish results; and then
5
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-821
Figure 2—Roles of research and management in a highly collaborative partnership.
managers receive the information via technology transfer products, and adjust
management accordingly. In more intensive partnerships, each community helps the
other accomplish their respective tasks and work collaboratively to carry out shared
tasks, including some with learning objectives that involve distinctive roles in a
common setting. This high level of partnership is the essential setting of a strong
adaptive management program, which requires constant feedback between management and research.
Roles of Management
The management organization generally has day-to-day responsibilities for routine
management of lands where research is carried out. These responsibilities can differ
depending on agreements between research and management, but usually include
activities like road maintenance, law enforcement, fire management, recreation, and
other activities for which it may not be logical or efficient for research to duplicate
the capability.
6
Guide to Effective Research-Management Collaboration at Long-Term Environmental Research Sites
Research is often dependent on national forest personnel to conduct environmental analyses for research projects, and scientists frequently use management
projects, such as timber sales and stream restoration work, to conduct research
projects. In some cases, it may be possible to use cooperative funds from national
forest projects to install studies. Historically, it was possible to use funding from
Knudson-Vandenberg (funds derived from timber sale receipts), brush disposal,
coop funds like road maintenance deposits, and similar sources; other, more current
or innovative approaches are now needed, such as stream restoration or hazardous
fuels reduction treatment funds where appropriate.
Management may also participate in framing research topics and approaches.
The world of the land manager brings specific information needs and a breadth
of perspective that may lead to better, more integrated science studies than would
occur otherwise. The management world demands integrative thinking across a
broad range of issues, which often contrasts with the tendency of the science
culture to narrow the focus of research questions. By quickly adopting and adapting
new science findings, managers can help improve research outcomes because
researchers can immediately see real-world implications of their studies and modify
the study and interpretations, if appropriate.
Roles of Research
A critical role of researchers is to frame questions in a manner that can be addressed by using the methods of science, including experimentation, and that
contributes to the larger science enterprise. Researchers generally direct implementation of studies; analyze, archive, and interpret the data; and report results in the
scientific literature. In the standard technology transfer model, researchers are
expected to deliver findings to managers and the science community in a timely,
understandable, and useful manner. Applied studies, of course, have immediate
usefulness, but scientists may also undertake basic studies whose usefulness may not
be known for many years. Where a strong research-management collaboration
exists, results of research can be implemented well before any publication, thus
speeding up the incorporation of research in management practice and more
quickly improve on-the-ground resource management. Just as some management
issues can help researchers think in broader, more integrative terms, researchers can
help managers understand how research methods determine the range of inference,
how uncertainty applies to a given result, and the tradeoffs that must be considered.
7
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-821
Shared Roles
A common issue across the system of EFRs is management of the properties—
roads, facilities, trails, other aspects of field access, roadside salvage, fire management, pesticide use in experiments or for control of invasive species, and many
other matters. Some of this work involves infrastructure, and some involves experiments themselves. Various administrative chores may be involved in organizing
responsibilities for this work, including development of special use permits,
memoranda of understanding, site operating plans, and similar documentation. The
particulars of responsibilities among these infrastructure and administrative tasks
differ from location to location, but amicable agreements are an essential foundation for the work that affects the land and society.
The shared development and conduct of studies can result in shared learning
through projects conducted jointly at the research-management interface. These
may involve projects that can be accomplished only through a cooperative effort.
Roles within such projects may be distinguished; for instance, experimental design,
data management, and analysis may be the responsibility of researchers, while
experimental manipulations and field data collection may be done by management
staff. Continuing discussions between managers and researchers may lead to
modifications of the study design (e.g., supplemental components of the study to
address new, but related questions) that may benefit either researchers or managers
or both. Communicating the findings from collaborative studies is likely to be a
shared responsibility, which is strengthened by the common vision of people who
bring quite different perspectives to the project.
A key shared role is to find the optimum speed for adoption of new findings in
management. The traditional technology transfer approach has been criticized for
being very slow, whereas a tight partnership may run the risk of prematurely
adopting new science findings. The critical issue is timing—when is a new idea ripe
for adoption? The answer to optimum learning and improvement of resource
management is a balance of uncertainties about the state of science and its transferability into management. This transfer sometimes involves willingness on the part
of researchers and managers to take reasonable risks. An intermediate step may be
useful, such as larger scale demonstration projects, before wide adoption of a new
practice.
In addition to project-specific communications, a research-management partnership may also host public forums on topics of general interest to managers and
8
Guide to Effective Research-Management Collaboration at Long-Term Environmental Research Sites
the public. These may occur as field tours or workshops that may take the form of
a continuing dialogue with the public concerning the future of resource management in the region. In these contexts, managers and researchers can demonstrate
how new findings can be applied in a real-world setting.
Benefits
The benefits of strong, effective, productive collaborations accrue to all concerned:
managers, scientists, the land, and society as a whole. Each of these groups derives
benefits distinctive to its roles.
Scientists find it rewarding to see their work used in a real-world context.
Science projects benefit from the knowledge of managers who have a great deal of
field and other experience. Ideas for new research and a push for more integrative
thinking and studies may emerge from collaboration with managers. Involvement
with managers and the public broadens the horizons of scientists.
Managers benefit from close collaboration with scientists because their proposed projects can be made more consistent with current science methods and
findings, which is a requirement for federal natural resource management. Land
managers’ ideas about new approaches can be tested through studies conducted
jointly with researchers. Research-management collaboration may also enrich the
interaction with the public, which stimulates trust, an important foundation for the
work of land managers. Also, some management specialists and line officers term
themselves “science junkies” who enjoy being party to ongoing research.
Credibility of work is an important, shared benefit of close collaboration
between scientists and managers. A continuing, place-based, research-management
collaboration can develop management practices that have both science credibility
and management credibility, so that when the policy window opens, we have good
concepts and practices to deliver. Management credibility means practices are legal;
economically, operationally, and environmentally feasible; and socially acceptable.
Science credibility is founded on good experimental design, data analysis, and
stringent peer review of plans, analyses, and communication products. Peer review
should include land managers, who bring strong knowledge of ecosystems to the
collaboration. The importance of strong collaboration is reinforced by the history
of legal challenges that has brought the agency (indeed, any federal agency) to the
point where research-grade monitoring is important so that management plans and
practices are defensible in court and other venues of intensive, public scrutiny.
9
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-821
How to Do It—Suggestions for Building a Strong
Research-Management Partnership
A key to successful partnership is having a shared commitment to the commons—
the common land, common interest in learning, common program of work. At the
core must be a strong commitment to the spirit of partnership. This requires
creativity and openness to work across disciplines, across the research-management
cultural divide, and with academics and the public. Common language and common experiences are part of the foundation. This all takes time—and if it’s not
happening now, now is the time to start.
These issues operate at personal, institutional, and public levels (see box on
page 3). At the personal level, the guidelines are simple, but often ignored. Seek a
friend on the other side. Appreciate the objectives, motivations, tasks, constraints,
and reward systems of the other person and their home institution.
At the inter-institutional level, help one another get their respective tasks done.
Carry out applied studies and communications programs at the interface of the
management and research institutions (fig. 2). Long-term studies can be a valuable
medium for cultivating long-term relationships. Staff the interface by designating a
full- or part-time research coordinator/liaison position on the national forest or in
the research work unit to help manage work and communications at the interface.
However, this person does not have sole responsibility for communication and
collaboration between research and management. Encourage multiple lines of
internal communication channels and social networking, because communications
redundancy can be helpful in complex situations where many points of view are
involved and also buffer staff turnover. Hold regular meetings or other interactions
to deal with day-to-day issues and build a strong base of interactions that will serve
the collaboration when difficult issues arise. Regular meetings and field trips are a
forum for taking a fresh look at ongoing work and generating ideas for new
collaborative work.
Some dimensions of collaboration may benefit by formalization of a memorandum of understanding, study plans, a site operating plan, or other types of agreements. Formulating such documents is itself a collaborative process in part because
roles are specified and they must mesh effectively. On EFRs, a “research land-use
plan” may be a useful device for specifying control areas, historical experiments,
primary field tour sites, areas for education activities where some level of site
disturbance may occur, opportunities for future manipulative experiments, and
other uses. Such designations may aid in protecting research installations, minimizing the human footprint in order to maintain future study options, concentrating
10
Guide to Effective Research-Management Collaboration at Long-Term Environmental Research Sites
research activities to enhance potential for research synergies, and managing
invasive species by concentrating the sites of most likely introductions.
Links with other personnel outside the collaboration, other institutions, and
the public are critical to an effective partnership. External communications are
strengthened when managers and researchers are elbow-to-elbow discussing their
shared ideas and work with outside groups of other managers, scientists, media,
public, and students. It is important to encourage engagement of academics,
stakeholders, and other non-Forest Service people to broaden the perspectives and
means of communication. These communications can become a continuing
discussion of the future of forestry in the region via field trips co-hosted by
managers and researchers. Repeating such public discussions helps managers and
researchers get “on the same page,” clarify their differences, and track change
within the agency and its societal context.
Many interesting examples of these approaches exist across the EFR sites. We
refrain from presenting specific case studies because approaches are quite context
specific, often based on personal relationships, and may be transient. Nevertheless,
the very differences in successful approaches are a testament to the array of
options available to researchers and managers as they seek ways to work together;
good communications is the key. The best way to find out about what works and
what doesn’t is to contact lead scientists and managers at EFRs and ask about
successes and failures.
Closing Words
Building and sustaining collaborative relationships is challenging, yet valuable and
rewarding work. This is true in all aspects of resource management and research.
Research-management relationships are no exception. The challenges to strong,
productive collaboration based at sites such as EFRs include differences in culture
and mission, evolution of the participating institutions, turnover of workforce,
change in administrative rules and interpretations of them, and change in societal
context of land management.
Collaboration related to long-term research properties is especially important
because of the magnitude of the work that occurs there, the visibility of the
properties and programs, and the value of study results and their impacts on policy
and management. The many examples of good collaboration associated with longterm research properties serve as models for what can occur more widely and
create great benefits to the participants and society as a whole.
11
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-821
Working in strong collaboration is natural, because managers and scientists
share a fascination and respect for these wonderful lands the public has entrusted to
federal agencies. Strong collaboration builds credibility of both management and
research in the public eye.
Our forests, rangelands, and watersheds face many uncertainties as a result of
changing environmental and social forces. It is important to marshal all our capabilities to monitor and adapt. The need for strong collaboration in the context of
these sites for long-term learning is greater than ever before.
Literature Cited
Adams, M.B.; Loughry, L.; Plaugher, L., comps. 2004. Experimental forests and
ranges of the USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-321. Newtown
Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern
Research Station. 178 p. (2008 updated edition on CD).
Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978; P.L. 97-307,
92 Stat. 353, as amended.
Lugo, A.E.; Swanson, F.J.; González, O.R. [et al.]. 2006. Long-term research at
the USDA Forest Service’s experimental forests and ranges. BioScience. 56(1):
39–48.
McSweeney-McNary Act of 1928; 45 Stat. 699–702.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Forest Service]. 1997.
Integrating science and decisionmaking: guidelines for collaboration among
managers and researchers in the Forest Service. Pub. FS-608. Washington, DC.
11 p.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Forest Service]. 2008.
Experimental forests and ranges [Brochure]. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest
Research Station. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/experimental-forestsbrochure.pdf). (13 January 2010).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service [USDA Forest Service]. 2009.
Experimental forests and ranges: 100 years of research success stories. Gen.
Tech. Rep. FPL-GTR-182. Madison, WI: Forest Products Laboratory. 29 p.
12
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
This Page Left Blank Intentionally
Pacific Northwest Research Station
Web site
Telephone
Publication requests
FAX
E-mail
Mailing address
http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw
(503) 808-2592
(503) 808-2138
(503) 808-2130
pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us
Publications Distribution
Pacific Northwest Research Station
P.O. Box 3890
Portland, OR 97208-3890